If I didn't have to get up early tomorrow, I would be joining you for some wine... I could do with a large glass myself

His Honour Judge Owen QC gave judgment on a payment protection insurance claim in Jones v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc (2011), Unreported, Lincoln County Court, 13 October 2011. Mr Jones initially issued a claim against NRAM alleging (amongst other things) that the PPI was represented as compulsory. After disclosure and exchange of evidence, Mr Jones applied (and obtained) permission to amend his claim and abandon the allegation that the PPI was represented as compulsory (as this was not supported by the call recording) and expand his other allegations. Mr Jones also sought to rely upon Appendix 3 to the Financial Services Authority’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints (“DISP”). By the time of trial, Mr Jones also abandoned any reliance on DISP. He also abandoned his allegations that there was non-compliance with ICOB and/or an unfair relationship because NRAM failed to advise on, or take account of, the cost of alternative policies on the market and received a commission from the insurer (following Harrison). His Honour Judge Owen QC dismissed the claim. After hearing submissions on costs, he awarded them on the indemnity basis in the sum of £19,348.11. Mr Jones pursued his claim in the Courts. By the time of trial, Donns LLP (the solicitors instructed by Mr Jones), had incurred costs (excluding a success fee which was, no doubt, 100%) of around £49,000. If the success fee was 100%, Mr Jones’ costs would have been just short of £70,000 yet, by the time of trial, he had only paid £3,634.01 towards the PPI.

Hello Newstarter I think you may be mistaken. In both cases, you appear to have mixed up the Claimant with the Defendant. Jones did not risk losing upwards of £20,000 for using s.140 as a defence. Jones was actually the Claimant and not the Defendant. This is also true in Harrisson v Blackhorse, the borrower was the claimant and the lender was the defendant. Using s.140 as part of a defence, would not incur any additional risk to a borrower. s.140 should not be so quickly dismissed as a tool in a well constructed defence against a claim brought by a lender. After all, that would be to ignore that in Bentley it was also argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. These would appear to be arguments that numerous other borrowers, could incorporate into any defence. Is there anything to lose by including s.140 in a defence, rather than a claim ?

A debtor has secured a five-year block on repossession in a claims management case against his lender, after using consumer credit law to challenge his secured loan agreement. Peter Bentley, of Bridgend, Cardiff, used the meaning of unfair relationships under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 to claim that his loan contract with Blemain Finance was an unfair one. Blemain also agreed to charge no further interest on the £40,000 loan and cut his repayments from £550 to £150 a month. At the High Court in Cardiff, Judge Milwyn Jarman also prevented the lender from levying any charges or legal costs "whatsoever." The judge barred Blemain for enforcing repayment via repossession for five years, but even after this period, it can only bring repossession proceedings if there are at least 12 months? arrears on the new level of payments. Bentley's lawyers, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS), successfully argued that Blemain had loaned the money to Bentley irresponsibly and that the agreement took advantage of his desperate situation. CCLS argued that shortcomings in the decision making procedure on granting the loan, such as in the under writing, affordability checks and valuation processes, led to the credit agreement being unfair. Andrew Settle, solicitor for CCLS, said: "The relationship between the parties was an unfair one within the meaning of Section 140A of the CCA 1974. CCLS is utilising a significant number of legal arguments, like those used on behalf of Mr Bentley, in thousands of cases on behalf of our clients." CCLS successfully demanded to have the loan account re written, which is believed to be the first time a loan account has been rewritten under settlement, as a result of the unfair relationships test. Bentley's case was taken on by claims management company Cartel Client Review. Carl Wright, chief executive of Cartel Client Review, claimed that Blemain made the offer to Bentley in a bid to prevent a judge in a High Court setting a legal precedent against its lending practices. He added: "A legal precedent could have driven a coach and horses through all its loan accounts. The consumer credit rule book is being rewritten as a result of High Court settlements like Blemain Finance v Bentley." Bentley's financial problems started when his mother died in 2007. He began part-time work to look after his father, who was suffering from Alzheimer's, and then took out a £40,000 secured loan in February 2007 to alleviate his financial predicament. His caring responsibilities led to a drop in working hours, and therefore a fall in income, and he then fell behind on his repayments. Blemain later chased Bentley for repayments on the loan, which by the time of this case being heard in court, had increased to £47,000.

Forget the FSA not a FSMA regulated agreement. Try s.140 of the CCA Take a look at Blemain Finance v Peter Bentley for a possible way forward.

As for HML - Taken from a online industry publication HML have announced that chief executive, Brian Brodie and chief commercial and finance officer, Neil Warman have decided to leave the company. Richard Twigg, group finance director of Skipton Building Society and chairman of HML, says: “We would like to thank Brian and Neil for the enormous contribution they have made to HML over the last three and a half years and wish them every success for the future. “Whilst recruitment activity begins to find permanent successors, Andrew Jones, currently chief operating officer will act as interim chief executive.” Jones adds: “We will enter 2012 with a stable and sustainable operational and financial base, giving us the right platform to develop and grow, backed by Skipton Building Society.” HML’s 2010 accounts reveal the company made a profit before tax of £64,000 for 2010, compared with £3.4m in 2009. Its profit would have been £5.48m if it had not have been for restructuring costs. The restructuring included the closure of two operational sites and the transfer of certain functions to its head office. HML also reduced staff levels from 1,966 to 1,460 in 2010, while its assets under management fell from £47.46bn in 2009 to £43.47bn in 2010. The servicer has lost two high profile clients in the last 12 months. In December 2010 GMAC-RFC announced that it was taking the servicing of its £3.6bn book in-house, followed by Nationwide Building Society in January transferring the administration of a combined £2bn mortgage book in-house. In August talks were believed to have broken down between Vertex and Skipton over the acquisition of HML. Fitch Ratings has placed Homeloan Management Limited’s UK residential mortgage primary servicer ratings of ’RPS2+(sub-prime)’ and ’RPS2+(prime)’, and UK residential mortgage special servicer rating of ’RSS2-’ on rating watch negative. The rating action follows the recent announcement that both the chief executive officer and chief financial officer departed HML on October 27 2011. Fitch notes the temporary management structure in place provides the business with a reduced layer of management and reduced breadth of experience, but average industry experience and company tenure among the executive team totals 15.7 and 6.5 years respectively - which remains on a par with rated peers. Furthermore, Fitch’s global servicing criteria incorporates the financial condition of mortgage servicers. Following the downgrade of its parent company, Skipton Building Society to ’BBB’/Negative from ’A-’, Fitch has adjusted its scoring model to take this into account. The RWN reflects the negative outlook placed on Skipton’s long term issuer default rating, along with the current uncertainty regarding future executive team structuring and strategy of the servicing operation. Fitch says it will continue to monitor developments at HML over the next six months and issue further commentary when appropriate. At the moment HML is not in a position too or is capable of taking over Acenden. Might be the otherway around if anything

I read somewhere that Acenden will be servicing loans for a main stream lender in the new future. Got this from their site Acenden is the highest Fitch rated residential mortgage special servicer in the UK market and the only primary servicer ranked 'Strong' by Standard & Poor's, the highest ranking in the UK market. Acenden is also ranked 'Above Average' by Standard & Poor's as a special servicer of residential mortgages in the UK. S&P Acenden has a good track record and is experienced in special servicing and servicing difficult loans Acenden employs experienced senior management, which has now been working as a team for a year and the rankings reflect the management's positive impact on the company Acenden has implemented changes that have resulted in reported 8% gains in efficiencies Internal reorganisation has enhanced Acenden's customer service, measured by improved quality scores and by complaints levels, which have been further reduced and are now, in S&P's view, at a low level S&P’s rankings now cover the full spectrum of residential mortgages STRONG – UK residential mortgage primary servicer ('Stable' outlook) ABOVE AVERAGE - residential mortgage Special Servicer ('Positive' Outlook) Fitch Acenden is the highest rated residential mortgage special servicer providing both primary and special servicing capabilities in the UK Ratings are supported by the experience and stability of the senior and middle management teams Technology initiatives have generated numerous operational efficiencies within the servicing platform, as well as enhancing Acenden's already well-developed and experienced special servicing function Residential primary servicer UK Prime RPS2 UK Sub prime RPS2 [*]Residential special servicer UK RSS2 In 2011, Moody's commented on Acenden's servicing operations: Acenden currently benefits from very experienced senior management Moody's views positively Acenden's servicing capabilities in maximising the pool performance given the intrinsic quality and characteristics of the underlying mortgages

Don't know about that but I heard that the Acenden Action Group might be under investigation and review by the Information Commissioners Office with a view to action being taken